Planetary Annihilation's Economy System

And that is perfectly reasonable. Manually expanding command-groups each time a new Metal Extractor comes online is a truer definition of busywork than anything proposed so far and can be (and should be) automated in the same way as "select all Air" and "select all Construction Units", etc.

At this point this isn't even arguing; just contradicting. Despite pages of discussion across the forum explaining the purpose of behaviour scripts.

I still didn't get a response from you. What was the context I got wrong?

I'm not responding to anybody in particular, just putting down my thoughts.

As far as I can tell the argument boils down to the fact that some people believe that the ability to execute commands is in fact the benchmark of skill. IE: Starcraft 2.
Others think the benchmark of skill is in fact your decision making, strategies, etc (APM does not equal skill, its just a prerequisite for execution).

I'm of the opinion that having to do the same things over and over and over in regards to controlling structures specifically is arbitrarily adding APM to the game, for no apparent reason.

That said, being able to set specific conditions for everything to react by is a few steps too far.
Having one specific condition (Out of Energy) that you can tell structures to react to is just plain common sense
Obviously this would imply that reacting before you run out of energy is still far more effective. Versus waiting until your energy actually runs out, which would stall everything for a moment until pre-designated structures shut off to compensate (Global pre-designed scripts are also something I'm against, because it removes both micro and macro management, I think everything should occur in-game rather than pre-game).

Thanks Nano. I was hoping a reduction in pure busy work would constitute a common ground.
No worries weyrling, I feel like I’ve been just adding padding between 2 conversations too lol.
And I agree with your assessment. Though I personally would favour an analogue control of resource portioning in times of shortage rather than just the classic on/off (why I suggested a slide bar rather than just hotkeys. Though obvs i'm aware this can’t work for all unit types, radar for e.g. is either on or off). But I do feel it is important to require player involvement to dig themselves out of their eco-hole, rather than just having a pre-programmed set of events which turn the input (low energy for e.g.) into an output (econ recovery), even if they are of the players original design.

The reason being no matter how great your programmed solutions in terms of their economic genius, if you have to be a mod coder to write them it puts non mod coders (who may be just as economically savvy) at a disadvantage. And just making these available to all is no solution because then those without the economic savvy can use them as a magic cure-all.
So that extra stage of player involvement is vital, its just a question of the degree of control of porating/portioning.

Stephen

I think you don't get it and it's a reason why people don't understand each-other.
I don't like such automation because it remove the need to even think about it.
The skill people want is that you have to remember to do it. In the heat of the battle, it's not as easy as it seems. It's not about execution or being able to click fast. It's about the skill to think fast under pressure.

I'd still like to know exactly what level automation people are wanting. Tell us what level you want and give an example scenario.

Of course we naysayers take umbrage without concrete examples of exactly what you think this automation will allow you to do that can't already be done by just being more competent with Hotkeys. (which is a valid skill to learn)

Above TA, below Zero-k.

I don't think you understand the word "exactly" in all of its subtle nuance there igncom1

I don't really know "exactly" what I want, only the general area.

So that was the only way I could answer your question, you fill in the blanks with the best design decisions in the specified area and I'll be happy.

Can't colour in between the lines if you're not going to give me the lines.

TA - Bottom line

Zero-k - Top line

Care to outline Zero-K's methods? I've never played it and have no intention of doing so.

ZK is like... free. Just play it and save us the trouble.

ZK holds the philosophy of "What can be automated, should be". Or some paraphrase of that.

Widgets (aka. player-side scripts) run completely locally and can access only information the player can. They can perform any command the player technically could. It has been said that one could make an entire AI play the game for you as a widget, although it would be a dumb move as the best ZK AI is only slightly better than a newbie.
Widgets are also completely unregulated and one can code a widget on a fine day and just go ahead and use it in an MP game.

In practice, what happens is that the players all just use a core set of widgets with maybe one or two extra that they found useful for their style. Range rings, custom formations, kiting, jinking, airplane control, a nuke button, lines under radar dots to show height, etc.
All are widgets and virtually all of them ship with ZK in the default package. They run the gamut from fine control (active guard) to purely information management (range rings; auto-mark important enemy buildings on sight (eg. fusions, nukes, anti-nukes)).

Problem is, I disagree with that. >.> If it can be done better without using hotkeys, with pre-programmed responses and conditional orders, that's the way it should be done.

At least to me. Clearly not to you.

-------------------------------------------

As for where specifically I draw the line... um, far out of sight probably. =D

More seriously, reactive scripts are perfectly fine for me. Scripts that execute a specific defined maneuver are just another tool for the player to use. (eg. line up facing X direction, advance forward until you are in range of an enemy or a leash distance in front of your comrades; this is a basic formation-kite command btw
eg. we also have the example of energy priority)

Even predictive scripts can be fine too, seeing as how I tried to make a generalized AA firecontrol gadget for ZK which didn't work out too well. Here's what I aimed to do: AA towers will not fire on enemies who have "died" but the shots heading there haven't arrived; AA towers cooperate to take down more expensive targets first, also without overkill, taking into account reload times and time left in range(!!); burst AA towers will not fire on cheap baits entering range if they have sufficient lighter AA nearby that can kill them.
This gadget attempt to create cooperative behaviour to optimize the damage distribution of AA towers across targets aimed at causing maximum casualties over raw damage, something that no player can achieve in ZK due to the speed and number of planes making precise clicking all but impossible. It was too convoluted and messy to maintain which means its non-existent now, but watching the code work at assigning missile towers to pigeon swarms (PvE air enemy) in cooperation with AA guns and mobile missile launchers is a sight to behold. It really highlights just how far the gap is between units acting intelligently or as dumb rocks. (why do 10 missile towers just fire at the first pigeon causing 8 of them to waste their first of three shots, which take 5-7s to reload independently)

The upper line that I would draw would lie somewhere around automated raiding algorithms. E323AI (a BA ai) has a pathfinder built into it that allows it to squeeze scout bots down a bot-sized gap between two defense towers. With a pathfinder, remembering which areas were scouted when, and a model of how players' assets spread across the map, one could potentially create an algorithm that would essentially play the raiding game only slightly less efficiently than a good player could.
This would cross the line and change the game into something fundamentally different. Although I might still find it fun! It just wouldn't be the same kind of game anymore.

Which is stupid.

No one expects automative behaviours to make players forget nor eliminate pressure and quick decisions. You still have to be attentive to your assets' survival and what they're doing, and react to the enemy; unless you're one of those people who believes remembering the on/off state of every metal maker is important to gameplay.

You also can't make this statement without bringing to question the validity of every other evolution of RTS user interfaces and commands made specifically to ease pressure on the player, from selecting more than one unit, to factory queues, to attack-move, to zoom.

I already expressed what ideal an interface should follow -which is the natural evolution of computing- in this post; third paragrath.

It allows for seamless control over all your assets. Frees your attention to where you think it's most needed. Is scaleable in a way which hotkeys aren't(you are limited to ten groups).

Your predictive script AA widget is something sorian is already putting in (allegedly). A group of units left to their own devices (a simple move to position, a "paint attack" command or cluster of AA towers, etc) won't focus on the first target they see but rather split fire for maximum efficiency. However you can still force them to focus fire on a single target by assuming direct control and right clicking a specific enemy unit.

This 'automation' I have no problem with because the function it provides is impossible for a human to do unless you slowed it down to -10 time-scale. Managing your economy is, by contrast, very easy to do. It's not hard and it doesn't need you to be at -10 time-scale to accomplish.
I see absolutely no need for Economy Management to be automated in any way and I believe it cheapens one of the Core Aspects of play that I personally find engaging...

Pretty sure a lot of people find Economy Management engaging actually... They've weighed in on this thread already and you can see it's a very divisive proposition.

Pretty sure no one likes the impossible task (unless at -10 time-scale... which no opponent would let you do) of individually clicking each AA tower to target a separate enemy plane, nor finds it engaging and thus, can and should be automated.

---

Sending out a raid of units will mean they move as best they can towards your target point and will dole out fire on whatever they see, trying to cover as many enemy units with fire as possible to maximise total damage efficiency and reduce overkill. But if you want your raiding party to ONLY kill the Metal Extractors then you need to oversee it and target each Metal Extractor as you find it to override the raiding parties' target priorities.

Very Specific Commands should never be automated.

---

I am perfectly accepting of AI's accomplishing impossible tasks, that by human standards, should be common sense.
I'm dismissive of tasks that are relatively easy to accomplish being handed off to the AI, as that seems overly lazy.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you did not read all of my description of the AA firecontrol because I think you would disagree with the last part of what it does:

Namely, it prevents high-alpha turrets from firing on low-hp chaff targets *even when there are no other targets around and nothing is shooting the bait*. The logic being that if there are fast reload turrets around, there is no point in shooting an approaching chaff unit when the others will get rid of them when they get in range. The high-alpha turret should save its shots for bombers and gunships.

This clearly makes alpha-based AA defense very hard to bait since AA is now divided into two separate levels (shoot all and ignore chaff). And that in ZK the quintessential Alpha-based AA tower, if shooting a bomber, makes cost in one salvo.


If you are still fine with that, then ignore the rest of this post as I have clearly misunderstood your position. Do please clarify why it is ok if this is the case.

What I see here is that we hold different criteria for what is good to be automated.

In my case, I consider any "decision" that can be clearly and effectively described by a simple fomula/algorithm/decision tree, is a perfect target for automation. Being "lazy" about these things frees up your time for the harder things, which are generally more complex and involved gameplay.
If X event always leads to the player wanting Y action, then Y action may as well be an automatic response (with options to override).

I am dismissive of tasks that require no real thought to perform (beyond drill) being forced onto players. It seems unnecessary.

If everyone is going to want X to happen when Y happens, then by golly, just make X happen without us having to say so/push a button. We're going to do it virtually all the time anyway so it's not an interesting thing to think about. The exceptions are interesting though, so by all means, have buttons for those.
"Y happened! Do you want to push X?" *yawn* "Yes. " *push* rinse, repeat.


But clearly we aren't going to convince each other. If you feel that this is a good enough description of our positions then by all means, let's just agree to disagree on this and wait for the game. (read: I am tired)

Let's see the arguments:

A classic, always nice.

A general statement followed by putting some word in my mouth to prove your argument above. Perfect.

The black and white view. Either everything is automated or nothing. Either it's automated or it's a clickfest. Genius.

Yes it should and that may be in the game when sorian tells us more about unit "common sense" orders.

I completely agree with you that a turret, designed to destroy "high priority" bombers should have High Priority Bombers as their primary target in a wave of chaff. I know there's a High Priority Bomber there, I can see it... but it's moving SO fast and other units are in the damn way and I can't click it. The Unit AI should know I want a High-Yield Missile Tower to fire the High-Yield Missile at the most dangerous target.

This is an example of Common Sense "AI".

---

But Economy is different. I have no qualms about Nano-stalling. I did something wrong with my economy and I should be the one to fix it, not have my Economy fix itself.

If my enemy has hit me hard and some of my power storage or generators explode and put me into a Nano-stall then it is MY fault for not building in enough redundancy.
I should be the one to go through and fix it while scrambling interceptors, mobilising the fleet, loading transports, etc. rather than having the "Economy AI" take over.

I made a mistake. I should PAY for that...
not have it be a minor annoyance that I can ignore for 5 minutes.

If my enemy identifies that I am very close to bottlenecking on power and makes a sound tactical decision to take out a secondary or (science forbid) my main power generation fixtures then I feel he should be rewarded by trampling all over my *** if I don't react quickly and turn off extraneous power sinks and get my defences back online before his main attack hits.

I must react. Is my new Cluster of SAM-AA more important to get finished or is it more prudent to pause construction to allow my Flak guns the energy to fire. Is a whole group of Air Superiority Fighters about to be finished? Should I stop ALL base defence to get those finished quicker or change tack entirely and complete my Mega-Bot that is only one third complete but can deal with air units like nothing else. Do I shut down construction on the Planet's Moon to get my Base in order... or what about that Unit cannon on the 3rd Moon of Jupiter? Should I fire that now or shut it down? Do I pile energy into a counter attack against his base with my Asteroid, pulling full power from my remaining economy to the engines?

What do I sacrifice in order to survive? This is not a decision that should be "pre-set".

I failed to defend that power complex, I failed to scout the attack, I failed to react quickly enough to get defences on-line... I Failed. I deserve to lose that outpost/base/planet... and I deserve to be in a terrible position if he immediately applies pressure to my main base.

That's my stance as clear as I can put it, I think.
Failure is deserving of Retribution

Mind explaining why alpha-based turrets saving shots is ok but priority is not? They are both allocation questions after all.

Or the way that the turrets will cooperate and prioritize bombers that can be killed instead of independently engaging their own preferred targets?


I mean, you can even argue that failing to place screening light AA in front of your high-alpha turret is a mistake that should expose your turret to being baited and then bombed. Some people said as much in the ZK forums.

---------------------------

Even failure that can be mitigated via drill?

A failure mode that invokes tedious behaviour is sub-optimal.


Sure, you made mistakes. Depending on the magnitude of that mistake, you get much the same result. E priority doesn't manufacture E from nowhere.
Destroy a few wind generators and MM income drops a tiny bit. Destroy a small field on top of a mountain, MM income drops alot. Destroy a bunch of fusions, MM income is wiped out and factories being to pro-rate. Destroy the superfusion that takes out the surrounding fusions leaving his whole base running on nothing but some solars and winds? Maybe the radars don't even work properly anymore.

Punishment is still there. And in all cases, you are penalized the metal and buildtime needed to rebuild the lost power (or have to live with less).


BA has an MM management-widget that toggles MMs based on your E levels. Guess what, taking out a superfusion with bombers can win games due to wiping most of the E (which dies to sympathetic explosions). Even if the factories aren't consuming all the E that is left, the loss of income from MMs alone is enough to lose the game right there.